BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES
OCTOBER 9, 2006
The
meeting was called to order by Chairman Mickley at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mr. Kessler, Mrs. Timmons, Mr.
Thornton, Mr. Mickley, Mr. McMannis, Mr. Faulkner, Mr. Taylor
OTHERS
PRESENT: Clerk Patterson, Jeff &
Jill Harriman, Billy Jarrell, Barbara Miller, Steve Streng
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES: There being no additions or
corrections, the minutes for the meeting on August 14, 2006
were approved as distributed.
AGENDA
ITEMS:
OLD
BUSINESS: None
NEW
BUSINESS:
1.
Requesting a variance for a lot split resulting in the two lots being
8,196.62 sq. ft. and 9,901.23 sq. ft. vs. minimum of 11,200 sq. ft. lots
required; R-1 zoning district; filed by Barbara Miller for Bill M. Limes,
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE:
Mr.
Mickley read comments from the Zoning Inspector’s memorandum. According to Codified Ordinance 1137.12, the
minimum lot size in the R-1 zoning district is 11,200. The existing lots do not meet the new zoning
requirements. It is transferring 337 sq.
ft. of property from one lot to the other lot.
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Ms. Barbara Miller
addressed the Board. The lot in question
is triangular in shape. It has been
taken care of by Mr. Streng for a very long time. He has landscaped his backyard for his son’s
enjoyment. Ms. Miller’s parents do not
use this area. Transferring this lot will
protect Mr. Streng’s landscaping and his son’s privacy and will not take away
from her parent’s enjoyment of their yard.
You would never know that it is not part of Mr. Streng’s yard. This lot split would make it legal as the
Limes have plans to sell their home sometime in the future. This would also protect Mr. Streng, who has been
a very good neighbor to her parents.
Mr.
Streng assured the Board that nothing would happen as
a result of this lot split. He has a
multi-handicapped son, borderline autistic, and Mr. Streng has fixed up his
backyard for his son’s enjoyment.
Because of his son’s disabilities, he likes his privacy. Mr. Streng fears that when the Limes sell
their property, a new owner could come in and possibly build a patio on the
triangle area, and then the privacy would be gone. This lot split would prevent this from
happening. Mr. Streng showed photos of
the area in question to the Board. What
they are really doing is taking about 30’ or so across the back at a diagonal, bring it back up to the property so they will never be really
any closer than 20/25/30’ to their house.
At the closest point, they will never be as close as they are as at the
front of the house.
Mr.
Mickley pointed out that the triangle on the drawing showed 25’ by 35’, but Mr.
Streng mentioned 30’. Mr. Streng stated
it was pretty accurate, but it has not been surveyed. He plans to have it surveyed if this lot
split is approved. Mr. Mickley explained
that he’d like to have accurate numbers, because if the Board approves 30’ and
you don’t use it, that’s fine, but if 25’ is approved and more is needed, you
can’t go over that.
Mr.
Thornton suggested tabling this application until the applicant could get the
property surveyed and come back to the Board at the next meeting with amended
numbers to make sure everything is accurate.
Mr. Streng agreed.
Mr.
Taylor asked if any of the neighbors objected to this request. Mr. Streng stated he went to every neighbor
and no one had a problem.
Mr.
Thornton moved to table this request until the next scheduled meeting on
November 13th, seconded by Mrs. Timmons; affirmative voice vote was
unanimous.
Request
for variance was tabled.
2.
Requesting a variance for a fence to have 5’ front setback on
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE:
According
to the final plat for Mill Valley Subdivision Phase 1, there is a 15’ front
setback requirement for
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Mr. Jarrell addressed the
Board. His house sets at an angle. If he has to build the fence according to the
15’ front setback requirement, it would make his patio useless. He has a
basketball hoop on his patio. He needs
more room so that the ball doesn’t go over the fence and into the street. He also wants to fence in his dog. Mr. Thornton asked if the fence would be
built even with the back of the house.
Response was yes. Mr. Thornton
pointed out an easement in the back of the lot and if the fence is built in the
easement, it could be torn down if City or any utility workers would need to
get in for repairs. Mr. Jarrell
understood. His fence would connect to
the neighbor’s fence.
The
fence will be a 6’, dog-eared cedar fence which will be stained.
COMMENTS
OF CITIZENS: None
DISCUSSION
BY BZA MEMBERS:
Mr.
Taylor noted there is a definite safety issue with the property in question and
moved to approve the variance allowing the 5’ front setback, seconded by Mr.
Thornton and the question put, stood:
Mr.
Kessler YES Mrs. Timmons
YES Mr. Thornton YES
Mr. Mickley YES Mr. McMannis
YES Mr. Faulkner YES
Mr. Taylor YES
Variance
granted.
3.
Requesting 28.5’ front setback for construction of a front porch as
opposed to minimum of 30’ front setback required; R-2 zoning district; filed by Jeff
Harriman,
COMMENTS
OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR DESIGNEE:
According
to Codified Ordinance 1137.13(i), the minimum front setback for the R-2 zoning
district is 30’.
COMMENTS
OF REQUESTER: Mr. Jeff Harriman
addressed the Board. He would like to
put the porch all the way across the front of the house and come out 8’ to give
them more room.
COMMENTS
OF CITIZENS: None
DISCUSSION
BY BZA MEMBERS: Mr. Thornton moved to
approve the variance as requested, seconded by Mr. Taylor and the question put,
stood:
Mrs.
Timmons YES Mr. Thornton
YES Mr. Mickley YES
Mr. McMannis YES Mr. Faulkner
YES Mr. Taylor YES
Mr. Kessler YES
Variance
granted.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come
before the Board of Zoning Appeals, the meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m.